In fact if Walker is right, then Clemens’ career numbers aren’t even relevant as to whether or not he used steroids. They should be totally disregarded.

The convincing information in this case, if it ever surfaces, isn’t going to career numbers. It is going to be DNA-carrying used syringes, the testimony of teammates, and other evidence of his actual behavior. Just like in any other drug case.

Of course I have no personal knowledge whatsoever of whether he did or didn’t — but I’m a lawyer who has seen a lot of similar cases in my life and can make my guesses.

I’ve seen nothing solid so far to come close to meeting the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard to get RC in criminal trouble — but as to the “preponderance of the evidence, 51% likelihood” standard that applies in civil cases, employment relationships and the like, it’s another story.

Clemens is a ferocious competitor (remember the broken bat hurled at Piazza in the World Series) and if he believed as baseball players generally did that steroids improve performance then he’d believe he needed to them to compete (as Bonds did in his reported conversations) … of course there’d be millions of dollars worth of perceived motivation too … he injected himself with other substances (e.g. B12), he took large amounts of painkillers that risked serious long-term injury in order to pitch big games, etc.

One wonders why this admitted behavior wouldn’t go the extra small step to steroids, at a time when everyone was doing it and baseball management turned a blind eye of approval. He, like others, might have felt under pressure to do it. Heck, if I was a MLB player I might have done steroids myself.

If that was all there was to it, I’d say to myself , “I have no idea”, and not be commenting here.

But if that was all there was to it, RC should have listened when his lawyer first told him (as I’m sure he did) “Roger, say out loud one time to the public, ‘Innocent until proven guilty’, then shut-the-f-up and leave it alone, be gracious, and enjoy your millions and your fans, both of which you’ll have forever. If you’re really innocent you can’t do any more than that because you can’t ever prove a negative — and every time you protest your innocence you’ll just remind everyone of the charges against you (‘I don’t beat my wife!’). While if you are lying to me and are guilty you will walk into a buzz saw.”

But then Clemens has to go on 60 Minutes and protest “Where would I get needles?” (from the usual place?) “Why would I ever risk long-term health for competitive performance?” (ahem), and then present that secretly recorded phone call with McNamee where he *doesn’t* ask anything like the obvious “Why did you lie to hurt me?”, but McNamee does offer to lie to protect him. Etc.

None of this is reassuring. The client who protests too much is a well known commodity. Lawyers with clients who act this way raise their rates.

Mcnamee never claimed clemens was “clean” with Houston, he simply points out that he has no knowledge if clemens juiced when he was with them.

Put another way, it’s not what you say, it’s what people hear. And in this case, what people heard is probably not what the professors intended to communicate.

The most striking thing to me is comparing Clemens’ aging curve to that of all the other players out there. Even the elite ones, like a Schilling… they all get markedly worse as they approach their late 30’s… except Clemens.

That is not what Hendricks said. It was not an intent to clear the client, but to explain that while Clemens did have an unusual trajectory, it is not so unusual when compared to other outliers. Clemens, according to their view, is in a group of outliers, not a sole outlier. That was their intent anyway.

Excellent post….